For decades, California’s sentencing structure was shaped by “tough-on-crime” policies that stacked enhancement upon enhancement—firearm, gang, prior strike, and great-bodily-injury add-ons that could double or triple a prison term.

In 2021, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 81 (SB 81) to restore balance. Effective January 1, 2022, SB 81 requires courts to dismiss sentencing enhancements unless doing so would endanger public safety.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we use SB 81 both as a shield—to protect clients from excessive punishment—and as a sword—to reopen and reduce already-imposed sentences. This guide explains how the law works, who qualifies, and how defendants can use it to shorten time in custody or prevent enhancements altogether.

What Is SB 81?

Senate Bill 81 was authored by Senator Nancy Skinner and codified at California Penal Code § 1385(c).
It directs judges to dismiss enhancements when such dismissal serves “furtherance of justice,” creating a strong presumption in favor of striking enhancements unless retention is necessary for public safety.

Legislative Intent

The Legislature found that excessive enhancements disproportionately impacted people of color and contributed to mass incarceration without proven public-safety benefit. SB 81’s purpose is to:

• Rein in prosecutorial overuse of enhancements.
• Encourage individualized, equitable sentencing.
• Reduce California’s overcrowded prison population.

Codification Snapshot

Penal Code § 1385(c)(1): “The court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal is prohibited by any initiative statute.”

§ 1385(c)(2): Lists mitigating factors courts must consider and provides that dismissal is presumed to be in furtherance of justice unless the court finds dismissal would endanger public safety.

Historical Context: From Enhancement Era to Reform

Since the 1980s, California sentencing has layered dozens of enhancements—firearm use (§ 12022.5), gang participation (§ 186.22), prior prison terms (§ 667.5), serious felonies (§ 667(a))—often imposed cumulatively.

By 2018, lawmakers began reversing course:

• SB 620 (2017) made firearm enhancements discretionary.
• SB 136 (2019) repealed one-year prior-prison enhancements.
• AB 1509 (2021) targeted firearm “10-20-life” provisions.
  SB 81 unified this reform trend by instructing courts how to exercise discretion consistently.

Legal Framework: Breaking Down Penal Code § 1385(c)

1. Presumption in Favor of Dismissal

Courts must start from the presumption that dismissal of an enhancement is in the “furtherance of justice.” To rebut, the prosecution must show that dismissal would “endanger public safety,” defined narrowly as a likelihood of physical injury to others.

2. Mandatory Factors

Judges must consider, among others:

• Age under 26 at offense (§ 1385(c)(2)(E)).
• Childhood trauma or victimization (§ 1385(c)(2)(H)).
• Mental illness, substance abuse, or reduced culpability.
• Multiple enhancements for a single incident (§ 1385(c)(2)(B)).
• Overlapping or excessive sentencing exposure (§ 1385(c)(2)(C)).
• Plea offers and comparative sentencing outcomes.

3. Public-Safety Limitation

Even when factors favor dismissal, the court may retain an enhancement if striking it would endanger the public—a high threshold, supported by factual findings on the record.

How SB 81 Works in Practice

When It Applies

SB 81 applies:

1. At initial sentencing—the court must consider dismissal sua sponte.
2. At resentencing—if a case returns to court under AB 600 (Penal Code § 1172.1), recall provisions, or appellate remand.
3. Through post-conviction petitions—defense counsel may file a motion citing § 1385(c) requesting dismissal of one or more enhancements.

Retroactivity

While SB 81 is not explicitly retroactive, appellate courts have held it applies to non-final cases on appeal and to resentencing hearings under § 1172.1 or § 1172.6. Many trial courts likewise apply it in conjunction with People v. McKenzie (2020) 9 Cal.5th 40 and People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152 to ensure parity and fairness.

Procedure

A typical SB 81 motion includes:

• Sentencing transcript and abstract of judgment.
• Declaration outlining mitigating factors.
• Evidence of rehabilitation or trauma.
• Legal memorandum citing § 1385(c) and supporting case law.
  The prosecution may oppose; the judge must issue a reasoned decision on the record.

Who Qualifies Under SB 81

SB 81 applies to any defendant facing one or more sentencing enhancements, except where dismissal is barred by an initiative statute (e.g., Proposition 8 serious-felony enhancements under § 667(a)).

Strong Candidates

• Defendants with multiple overlapping enhancements.
• Young adults (under 26 at offense).
• Individuals with documented trauma, abuse, or mental-health history.
• Those demonstrating rehabilitation or reentry progress.
• Defendants serving disproportionately long terms due to stacked enhancements.

Limitations

• Courts cannot strike enhancements imposed by initiative statutes unless voters amend those laws.
• Dismissal cannot compromise public safety.
• Judges retain discretion; SB 81 does not mandate dismissal in every case.

How to Get SB 81 to Apply to Your Case

Even with favorable law, results depend on procedure, timing, and advocacy. Power Trial Lawyers routinely achieves SB 81 relief by pursuing multiple entry points:

1. Pre-Sentencing Advocacy

When the case is still pending:

• File a sentencing memorandum invoking § 1385(c).
• Present mitigation: youth, trauma, mental-health reports.
• Where appropriate, it is recommended to seek an expert who can provide the court with details about youth, trauma, mental-health, etc.
• Argue dismissal would not endanger public safety.
  Outcome: enhancements can be stricken before judgment.

2. Sentencing or Resentencing Motions

If judgment is entered but modifiable:

• Seek recall under AB 600 / Penal Code § 1172.1 (court-initiated or defense-requested).
• Include SB 81 analysis within resentencing brief.
• Request joint stipulation from prosecution where appropriate.

3. Pending Appeal

If the case is on direct appeal and not final:

• Raise SB 81 as an intervening ameliorative change (per In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740).
• Ask the Court of Appeal to remand for resentencing under current law.

4. Post-Conviction Petition

For final cases:

• File a motion for resentencing in the trial court invoking the court’s continuing jurisdiction under § 1172.1 or via local district attorney “resentencing unit.”
• Combine with other relief (e.g., AB 600, AB 256, or compassionate release).
• You should consult with a lawyer to ensure you understand the statutory framework for AB 600 or other post-conviction petitions. Limitations may apply.

5. Collaboration with Prosecutors

Some counties maintain post-conviction units that stipulate to SB 81 relief in appropriate cases. A persuasive defense packet demonstrating rehabilitation and low risk to public safety can trigger joint recommendations.

6. Habeas or Extraordinary Writ

If other avenues are exhausted, a limited writ of habeas corpus petition may be viable where failure to apply SB 81 results in an illegal or unauthorized sentence.

7. Early Preparation Matters

Judges favor credible documentation: therapy records, educational achievements, expert declarations, or community-support letters. The more complete the record, the stronger the SB 81 presumption becomes.

Case Law and Emerging Interpretation

Since SB 81 took effect, California courts have steadily clarified its reach. These decisions are the backbone of every effective motion under Penal Code § 1385 (c).

People v. Walker (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 386

Walker confirmed that § 1385 (c) creates a rebuttable presumption favoring dismissal of enhancements. A trial court that wishes to retain an enhancement must make express findings that dismissal would “endanger public safety.” Merely labeling an offense “serious” or “violent” is insufficient.

People v. Ortiz (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 635

The court held that SB 81 applies to any sentencing hearing held after January 1, 2022, even if the offense occurred earlier. Ortiz emphasized that judges must evaluate each enhancement individually, not simply accept the prosecution’s recommendation wholesale.

People v. Lipscomb (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 722

Lipscomb addressed defendants resentenced under AB 600 (Penal Code § 1172.1) and confirmed that § 1385 (c) factors apply during those proceedings. The opinion underscores the interplay between SB 81 and California’s broader resentencing framework.

People v. Andrade (2024) Cal.App. Unpub. — illustrative

Though unpublished, many trial courts cite Andrade for its step-by-step explanation of how to weigh cumulative enhancements and document “furtherance of justice” findings.

Together, these cases demonstrate that appellate courts expect reasoned discretion and record-based findings. A silent record invites remand for re-sentencing.

Practical Defense Strategies Under SB 81

1. Build a Robust Mitigation Record

• Youth and Brain Development: Use psychological or neuroscientific evaluations for clients under 26.
• Trauma Documentation: Certified therapy notes or expert declarations proving long-term abuse or PTSD.
• Rehabilitation Evidence: GED certificates, vocational completion, substance-abuse recovery, or commendations from CDCR.

2. Tie Every Fact to a Statutory Factor

For each enhancement challenged, cite the relevant subdivision:

Under § 1385 (c)(2)(B), multiple enhancements in a single incident should be dismissed to avoid cumulative punishment.

3. Highlight Comparative Sentencing

Show how similar defendants or co-participants received shorter terms. Courts weigh equity when determining “furtherance of justice.”

4. Demonstrate No Danger to Public Safety

Offer risk-assessment data, parole reports, or community letters to rebut any suggestion of ongoing threat. SB 81 defines danger narrowly—only physical risk to others qualifies.

5. Coordinate with Prosecutors

Many District Attorneys’ resentencing units will stipulate to dismissal when rehabilitation is verified. Collaboration accelerates relief.

6. Use SB 81 with Other Reform Statutes

Combine relief strategically:

• AB 600 (§ 1172.1): Opens the resentencing door.
• AB 256 (Racial Justice Act): Adds evidence of sentencing bias.
• SB 620 (§ 12022.5): Addresses firearm enhancements specifically.

A single petition can reference all three, giving judges multiple legal bases to strike or recall a sentence.

Practical Examples

Example 1 – Firearm Enhancement (§ 12022.5)

Before SB 81: 10-year add-on mandatory.
After SB 81: Judge must presume dismissal if the firearm was not discharged and no one was harmed, unless doing so endangers public safety.
Result: A 12-year sentence can drop to 2 years or probation.

Example 2 – Gang Enhancement (§ 186.22)

Revised gang laws plus SB 81 allow dismissal when the offense stems from environment or coercion rather than organized crime.
Result: Potential reduction of 10 years.

Example 3 – Multiple Enhancements

Two enhancements for the same incident—say, a firearm and a GBI—trigger § 1385 (c)(2)(B)’s directive to dismiss one.
Result: 3–10 years off the total term.

Policy Impact and Broader Significance

SB 81 is not merely a sentencing tool—it is a policy statement about justice and proportionality.
By instructing courts to view dismissal as the default, the Legislature recognized:

• Public safety is not measured by sentence length alone.
• Individualized justice reduces recidivism.
• Racial disparities shrink when enhancements are scrutinized rather than rubber-stamped.

Preliminary data from California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office show downward trends in average sentence lengths and prison overcrowding since 2022, particularly for firearm and prior-prison enhancements.

Future of SB 81

Reform momentum continues. 2025 legislative proposals may expand § 1385(c) to explicitly cover enhancements imposed by initiative statutes or to require appellate courts to apply the same presumption on review.

Courts are also exploring whether youthful-offender parole eligibility (Penal Code § 3051) and SB 81 dismissals can overlap to further shorten confinement.

Why Choose Power Trial Lawyers

SB 81 is powerful only when properly executed. At Power Trial Lawyers:

• We file targeted motions to seek to dismiss enhancements under § 1385(c).
• We integrate AB 600 resentencing and post-conviction strategies for maximum relief, where applicable.
• We maintain relationships with DA units statewide to secure stipulations that expedite release.

If you or a loved one is serving a sentence inflated by enhancements, contact Power Trial Lawyers for a confidential review at (888) 808-2179 or through our online intake form.

Frequently Asked Questions about SB 81

Facing a guilty verdict in California is one of the most overwhelming experiences a person and their family can endure. Whether the conviction came after a jury trial, court trial, open plea, or negotiated plea, the days and weeks immediately following sentencing are critical. This is the period during which defendants must protect their rights, preserve appellate issues, and make time-sensitive decisions—including whether to file a direct criminal appeal.

California law imposes strict, unforgiving deadlines. Most importantly:

You only have 60 days from the judgment to file a Notice of Appeal in a felony or misdemeanor case.

Miss this deadline, and you permanently lose the right to a direct appeal—no exceptions, no extensions, no second chances.

This article is written for defendants and family members across Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, the Bay Area, Sacramento, and all of California who are searching for clarity after a conviction. It is also designed to help individuals avoid the most common—and most damaging—post-verdict mistakes seen in criminal cases.

As a statewide California criminal appeals lawyer, Power Trial Lawyers handles felony and misdemeanor appeals from every Superior Court jurisdiction in the state. We prepared this guide to help you avoid the pitfalls that could cost you your appellate rights.

Mistake #1: Waiting Too Long to File the Notice of Appeal

The most devastating mistake people make after a guilty verdict is waiting. Many defendants think: “I’ll deal with this after sentencing” or “Let me get through prison intake first.” Even worse, California defendants think “my trial lawyer will file it for me” or “I have 90 days, right?” (Incorrect.)

California Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a), states that a defendant has 60 days from the date judgment is entered to file a Notice of Appeal.

Not 90 days.
Not “after intake.”
Not “whenever I’m ready.”

Exactly 60 days.

If the Notice of Appeal is not filed by Day 60, the right to a direct criminal appeal is lost forever. Even the Court of Appeal cannot grant relief after the deadline. There is no motion to extend time. There is no exception for hardship, confusion, jail transfers, or attorney error.

How to Avoid This Mistake

• Contact a California criminal appeals attorney immediately.
• File the Notice of Appeal as soon as possible—even before sentencing, if necessary.
• Allow your appellate lawyer to handle the filing, service, and confirmation.
• Confirm receipt of the Notice in the Superior Court docket.

The earlier the Notice is filed, the sooner transcripts can be requested and the record prepared, which accelerates the entire appellate process.

Mistake #2: Believing Your Trial Lawyer Will “Handle the Appeal”

Another common misconception is that the trial attorney automatically files the Notice of Appeal or continues representation into the appellate stage.

Reality:

Most trial lawyers do not file appeals, do not specialize in appeals, and do not continue representing clients once judgment has been entered.

Under California law:

• A trial attorney has no ongoing duty to pursue or file an appeal unless a separate agreement exists.
• The appellate process is fundamentally different from trial work and requires a specialized appeals lawyer.

Trial lawyers focus on jury selection, motions, negotiations, and sentencing. Appellate lawyers focus on legal error, constitutional violations, record analysis, issue identification, and briefing. These are completely different skill sets.

What Happens When Defendants Assume Their Lawyer Will File It?

• The 60-day appeal deadline passes.
• Family members assume the lawyer “took care of it.”
• Clients later discover no Notice was filed.
• The appeal is permanently barred.

How to Avoid This Mistake

• Do NOT assume your trial lawyer is filing anything.
• Ask explicitly: “Are you filing my Notice of Appeal?”
• Get it in writing.
• Ideally, retain a California criminal appeal attorney within days of the verdict.

Power Trial Lawyers routinely steps in immediately after sentencing to secure appellate rights statewide.

Mistake #3: Not Ordering (or Delaying) the Trial Transcripts

A criminal appeal in California is built entirely on the record of the case, which includes:

• Reporter’s transcripts (everything said in court)
• Clerk’s transcripts (motions, filings, exhibits, jury instructions, minute orders, verdict forms, etc.)

If transcripts are missing, incomplete, or delayed, the entire appeal stalls.

Why Transcripts Are Critical

Appellate courts review only what happened in the courtroom—not what happened outside of it. Appellate lawyers rely on the written record to identify:

• Evidentiary errors
• Constitutional violations
• Misconduct
• Bad jury instructions
• Sentencing errors
• Denials of motions (e.g., 995, 1538.5, 1118.1, new trial motions)
• Prosecutorial or judicial misconduct

If transcripts are not prepared promptly:

• The opening brief deadline cannot be set.
• The CDCR intake process may delay communication.
• Issues may become harder to identify.
• Witness recollections fade.
• The appeal timeline extends significantly.

California’s Process

After filing the Notice of Appeal:

• The court reporter must prepare the transcripts.
• The appellate division clerk assembles the clerk’s transcript.
• The Court of Appeal sends a notice confirming receipt of the record.

Delays on any of these steps slow the case.

How to Avoid This Mistake

• Have an appellate lawyer immediately file a Designation of Record.
• Follow up with court reporters (many are behind).
• Track transcript production deadlines.
• Ensure supplemental transcripts (e.g., sidebars, in camera hearings) are included.

A seasoned California criminal appeals attorney knows how to push transcript production forward and resolve missing-record issues quickly. Contact us today to consult with a California Criminal Appeals Lawyer at 888-808-2179.

Mistake #4: Misunderstanding What an Appeal Actually Does

One of the most damaging misunderstandings after a guilty verdict is the belief that a criminal appeal is a second trial. Families often assume the appellate court will hear new evidence, new testimony, or revisit the factual disputes that occurred during trial. In reality, a California criminal appeal is a highly specialized legal review of what happened in the Superior Court, not a re-litigation of the underlying case. The Court of Appeal examines the trial record for legal errors or constitutional violations that may have affected the fairness of the proceedings or the validity of the judgment.

Some defendants mistakenly think they cannot appeal because they “lost fair and square,” or because the jury “just believed the other side.” Others believe they can present new facts or bring forward witnesses who were not called. These misunderstandings lead to delays, missed deadlines, and lost opportunities. The appellate process is strictly limited to reviewing what occurred below. If the trial judge made errors, if counsel failed to object, if improper evidence was admitted, or if the jury received flawed instructions, those issues may form the basis of a reversible error. But none of this is possible unless the appeal is filed on time.

To avoid this mistake, it is essential to speak with a California criminal appeals attorney immediately after the verdict. A proper consultation clarifies what an appeal can and cannot do, explains timelines, and identifies whether there are viable issues for appellate review. Many defendants initially think their situation is hopeless, only to later learn that a strong appeal exists once the record is examined. Understanding the true function of a direct appeal allows you to make informed decisions early—precisely when timing matters most.

Mistake #5: Assuming a Plea Deal Cannot Be Appealed

Even a guilty plea can be appealed. A surprising number of people believe that entering a plea—especially a negotiated plea—eliminates any right to appeal. While it is true that guilty pleas limit the types of issues a defendant may raise, they absolutely do not eliminate the ability to file a direct appeal. Under California law, a defendant may still challenge matters such as jurisdictional defects, constitutional violations, sentencing errors, ineffective assistance of counsel that impacted the voluntariness of the plea, and any issue expressly preserved through a certificate of probable cause.

The misunderstanding often stems from confusing trial rights with appellate rights. A defendant who pleads guilty waives many trial rights, but does not waive the right to challenge the legality of the proceedings or the sentence imposed. This mistake is especially costly because defendants who enter pleas are often rushed through sentencing and transferred to custody quickly, making the 60-day deadline even more critical.

Avoiding this mistake requires early intervention. A qualified criminal appeal attorney in California will evaluate whether the plea was lawfully entered, whether the court properly advised the defendant, whether counsel explained the consequences, and whether the sentencing judge exceeded statutory authority. Many plea-based appeals ultimately lead to resentencing, withdrawals of pleas, or other significant relief. The key is to act quickly, because the right to appeal still expires exactly 60 days after judgment, regardless of whether the conviction was by plea or trial.

Mistake #6: Failing to Preserve Sentencing Issues

Sentencing is often treated as an afterthought, especially when the verdict has already been delivered. However, the sentencing hearing is one of the most important stages for preserving appellate arguments. In California, issues not raised in the trial court are frequently deemed forfeited on appeal, meaning the Court of Appeal will not consider them. This includes improper enhancements, incorrect term calculations, unauthorized sentences, misapplications of mandatory mitigation statutes such as Penal Code section 1170(b), or violations involving aggravating factor findings.

Many defendants assume the trial lawyer will raise every necessary objection. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Sentencing hearings move quickly, and defense counsel is often overwhelmed with last-minute reports, probation recommendations, and amendment requests from the prosecution. When objections are not made clearly and specifically, valuable issues are lost.

To avoid this mistake, a defendant should engage an appellate lawyer immediately after conviction so that sentencing issues can be identified and communicated to trial counsel before the hearing. An experienced California felony appeal lawyer understands which errors most often lead to reversals or resentencing and can ensure the record is properly preserved. Even if sentencing has already occurred, an appellate review may still uncover unauthorized or improperly calculated terms that an appellate court has the authority to correct.

Mistake #7: Waiting Until Prison Intake Before Seeking Help

One of the most common phrases we hear from families is, “Let’s wait until he gets processed into CDCR before dealing with the appeal.” This is a dangerous misconception and often results in the loss of critical rights. The intake process can take weeks. Transfers between county jail, Wasco, Chino, or CIW often disrupt communication completely. During this time, defendants may not have access to phones, mail, or their legal paperwork. Meanwhile, the appellate deadline continues running.

Families understandably feel overwhelmed after sentencing and want a moment to breathe. But the appellate courts do not pause the clock to accommodate that emotional processing period. The countdown to the Notice of Appeal deadline begins immediately, regardless of where the defendant is housed or whether CDCR has completed reception.

Avoiding this mistake requires recognizing that the period immediately after sentencing is the most important window for contacting a statewide California criminal appeals lawyer. The appellate attorney can file the Notice of Appeal even before intake is completed and can begin initiating the record designation process so that transcripts are not delayed. Waiting until after reception creates unnecessary risks and often leaves only days or hours before the deadline.

Mistake #8: Hiring a Lawyer Who Does Not Specialize in Criminal Appeals

Many people panic after a guilty verdict and hire the first lawyer who promises results. But an attorney who excels at trials, negotiations, or pretrial motions may not be equipped to handle an appeal. Trial work is fast, reactive, and focused on witnesses and courtroom performance. Appellate work is methodical, analytical, and grounded in constitutional law, statutory interpretation, and written advocacy.

A criminal appeal in California requires the ability to dissect thousands of pages of transcripts, identify legal error, craft sophisticated arguments, and anticipate how appellate justices will view the case. A trial lawyer who is not trained in appeals may miss issues, misunderstand standards of review, or fail to structure briefs in a persuasive and legally precise manner. Worse, some non-appellate lawyers file Notices of Appeal without understanding the steps that follow, leaving clients confused, unrepresented, and at risk of missing record designations or briefing deadlines.

Choosing the right attorney is essential. A California criminal appeals lawyer should be able to show prior appellate decisions, sample briefs, published or unpublished victories, and experience appearing before the Court of Appeal. You should feel confident that your appellate lawyer understands not just legal argumentation, but also the nuance of appellate procedure and the expectations of appellate courts statewide.

When a conviction has the power to alter a person’s life forever, the appeal should not be trusted to someone who does not practice full-time in this field. Specialized skill matters.

Mistake #9: Ignoring Post-Trial Motions That Strengthen the Appeal

After a guilty verdict, many defendants believe the only remaining step is the sentencing hearing. But California law allows for several post-trial motions that, if filed properly and on time, can significantly strengthen a later direct appeal. Among these are:

• Motion for new trial (Penal Code § 1181)
• Romero motion or other strike-dismissal motions
• Sentencing memoranda that preserve objections
• Motions addressing juror misconduct or judicial error

When a motion for new trial is made, it forces the trial judge to address alleged errors directly. Even if denied, the motion creates a valuable appellate record because the Court of Appeal can review not only the error itself, but also the judge’s rationale for rejecting the defense argument.

Unfortunately, defendants frequently miss the opportunity to file such motions because they assume they are unnecessary or because trial counsel is too drained after trial to put forward robust post-trial litigation. Others simply do not realize these motions exist.

Avoiding this mistake requires immediate communication with an appellate attorney who can identify which post-trial motions should be filed before judgment is pronounced. These motions often lay the foundation for appellate success. Without them, key arguments may be harder to raise or may be deemed forfeited.

Mistake #10: Losing Hope and Failing to Take Action

Perhaps the most heartbreaking mistake is the emotional paralysis that follows a guilty verdict. People often feel defeated, hopeless, or overwhelmed. Families withdraw. Defendants retreat inward. And because the appellate deadline continues ticking regardless of human emotion, time is lost.

A criminal conviction in California is not the end of the road. Many cases win relief on appeal, sometimes through reversal, sometimes through remand for resentencing, sometimes through striking enhancements, and sometimes through reversal of specific findings that change the entire structure of the sentence. Even when a full reversal is not possible, the appellate courts regularly correct sentencing errors, apply new laws retroactively, or remand cases based on procedural irregularities.

Taking action is the single most important step a defendant or family member can take. Filing the Notice of Appeal costs nothing, preserves all rights, and keeps the possibility of justice alive. Once the appeal is filed, a California felony appeal lawyer can assess the record methodically and present the strongest arguments available under the law.

Hope is not naïve—it is procedural. It is strategic. And it is necessary.

Protecting Your Future Starts Now

The days and weeks following a guilty verdict or sentencing hearing are some of the most critical in the entire lifespan of a criminal case. Mistakes made during this period can permanently eliminate appellate rights or weaken arguments that would otherwise lead to relief. The California criminal appeals system is unforgiving in its timelines and highly technical in its requirements. Yet it offers powerful remedies for those who act quickly and strategically.

If you or your loved one has been convicted anywhere in California—Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Sacramento, San Diego, the Bay Area, or any other jurisdiction—your appellate rights may already be running. Understanding the top mistakes and how to avoid them is essential, but guidance from a seasoned appellate lawyer is even more critical.

Power Trial Lawyers represents criminal appeals clients statewide, handling direct appeals in every California Court of Appeal district. Our role is to protect your rights, identify the strongest appellate issues, and provide a clear path forward at a time when clarity matters most.

Your time to act is short. Your rights remain powerful. And your future is still worth fighting for.

Consult With a California Appeals Lawyer Today

If you or your family member was recently convicted or sentenced in California, contact Power Trial Lawyers immediately. Your appellate deadline may already be approaching, and waiting even a few days could jeopardize your right to challenge the conviction.

Call today: 888-808-2179
Statewide California Criminal Appeals Representation
Direct Appeals • Felony Appeals • Sentencing Errors • Constitutional Violations

Your appeal starts with one step: preserving your rights before it’s too late.

Frequently Asked Questions

For decades, California’s criminal justice system sentenced young people to spend the rest of their lives in prison—often without ever asking the most important question:

Who are they now?

Many incarcerated individuals committed their crimes as teenagers or young adults, before their brains were fully developed, before trauma was treated, and before they had any real understanding of the permanent consequences of their actions. Yet the law treated them as if growth, maturity, and rehabilitation were impossible.

That is changing.

SB 672 California parole law represents the next major evolution in California’s youth offender parole framework. While the bill is not yet law, it signals a clear legislative intent: to expand parole eligibility, strengthen youth-focused review, and ensure that people who committed crimes at a young age receive a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we represent incarcerated individuals and families across California in parole hearings, youth offender parole matters, and post-conviction relief. We do not wait for laws to pass before preparing cases. The people who prepare early are the ones who win their freedom.

This guide explains SB 672 in full—what it is, who it would help, how it interacts with Penal Code 3051, and how to prepare now so you are ready the moment the law takes effect.

Important Update: Is SB 672 California Parole Law in Effect?

As of now, SB 672 California parole law has not yet been enacted. The bill has passed the California Senate but is still pending further legislative action, including approval by the Assembly and the Governor’s signature.

This distinction matters.

If SB 672 becomes law, there will be no grace period. The Board of Parole Hearings will immediately begin applying the new framework to eligible cases. Individuals and families who wait until the law is final will already be behind.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we are actively preparing parole cases under the anticipated SB 672 framework so our clients are positioned to succeed the moment eligibility opens.

Are You or a Loved One Impacted by SB 672 California Parole Law?

This law is not abstract. It was written for real people sitting in California prisons today.

You or your loved one may be impacted if:

• The offense occurred before age 26
• The sentence includes 15-to-life, 25-to-life, or life without parole
• A prior parole hearing was denied or never granted
• You were told there was “no chance” of release

Families contact us every week after decades of being told nothing could be done.

SB 672 California parole law challenges that assumption.

What Is SB 672 California Parole Law—and Why It Matters Even Before It Passes

California Senate Bill 672 is proposed legislation designed to expand and strengthen youth offender parole eligibility under California law.

In plain English, SB 672 California parole law would:

1. Expand parole eligibility for people who committed crimes as young adults
2. Strengthen how youth rehabilitation must be evaluated at parole hearings
3. Create broader review opportunities for individuals serving extreme sentences, including life without parole

The bill is grounded in:

• Modern neuroscience showing brain development continues into the mid-20s
• U.S. Supreme Court precedent recognizing diminished culpability of youth
• California’s ongoing commitment to criminal justice reform

Even though SB 672 is not yet law, it reflects where parole law is going—and how the Board of Parole Hearings will be thinking when these cases are reviewed.

The Legal Foundation: Penal Code 3051 Explained

To understand SB 672 California parole law, you must understand Penal Code 3051, because SB 672 builds on it.

What Penal Code 3051 Does

Penal Code 3051 requires the Board of Parole Hearings to provide a youth offender parole hearing to individuals who committed a “controlling offense” before age 26, after serving a specified number of years.

At that hearing, the board must give great weight to:

• The diminished culpability of youth
• Subsequent growth and maturity
• Evidence of rehabilitation

Why Penal Code 3051 Was Not Enough

Despite its promise, PC 3051 left significant gaps:

• Confusing and inconsistent eligibility timelines
• Limited clarity for life without parole cases
• Parole boards often minimized youth factors
• Families were left uncertain about rights and dates

SB 672 California parole law is designed to close those gaps.

How SB 672 Would Change California Parole Law

If enacted, SB 672 California parole law would make several critical changes:

1. Clear Reinforcement of Age-Based Eligibility

The bill reinforces that individuals who committed crimes up to age 25 are entitled to youth-focused parole review, consistent with neuroscience and existing case law.

2. Expanded and Clarified Parole Timelines

SB 672 would strengthen parole eligibility benchmarks—commonly 15, 20, or 25 years—so eligible individuals receive timely and meaningful review.

3. Mandatory Youth Rehabilitation Analysis

The parole board would be required to explicitly analyze:

• Youthful immaturity at the time of the offense
• Psychological and emotional development
• Evidence of rehabilitation and insight

This analysis would not be optional.

Who Would Qualify Under SB 672 California Parole Law?

Eligibility depends on three key factors:

1. Age at the Time of the Controlling Offense

The offense driving the longest sentence must have occurred before age 26.

2. Sentence Type

If enacted, SB 672 would apply to:

• Determinate sentences
• Indeterminate life sentences
• 25-to-life sentences
• Certain life without parole cases

3. Statutory Exclusions

Some exclusions may apply, but many people assume they are excluded when they are not. Proper legal review is essential.

Life Without Parole and SB 672: A Path Many Don’t Realize Exists

Life without parole once meant exactly that.

That assumption is no longer absolute.

California courts and lawmakers now recognize that:

• Mandatory LWOP for youth raises constitutional concerns
• Youth offender parole principles may apply even to extreme sentences
• SB 672 would strengthen arguments for review in qualifying LWOP cases

Not every LWOP case qualifies—but many do, especially where:

• The sentence was imposed before modern youth jurisprudence
• The individual demonstrates extraordinary rehabilitation
• The law allows for parole board review

These cases require high-level legal strategy.

What Is a Youth Parole Eligible Date?

A youth parole eligible date (YPED) is the earliest date the Board of Parole Hearings must conduct a youth offender parole hearing.

It is calculated based on:

• Sentence structure
• Age at offense
• Applicable statutes (Penal Code 3051 and, if enacted, SB 672)

CDCR records are often incorrect. We routinely audit eligibility dates and force compliance with the law.

What Happens at a Youth Offender Parole Hearing?

A youth offender parole hearing is a formal, adversarial proceeding where release is decided.

The board evaluates:

• The commitment offense
• Disciplinary history
• Psychological evaluations
• Insight and accountability
• Parole plans and community support
• Victim input
• Attorney advocacy

Under youth offender law, the board must determine whether the individual currently poses an unreasonable risk to public safety, with youth factors heavily weighted.

Psychological Evaluations: Often the Deciding Factor in Youth Offender Parole Cases

In youth offender parole hearings, including those governed by Penal Code 3051 and the proposed SB 672 California parole law, psychological evaluations are often the single most influential piece of evidence before the Board of Parole Hearings.

In practice, parole commissioners frequently rely on the psychological report as a summary judgment of risk—especially in serious or violent cases. A strong evaluation can neutralize decades-old facts. A weak or poorly framed evaluation can sink an otherwise well-prepared case.

This is why psychological evaluations are not an afterthought. They are strategic evidence.

What the Parole Board Is Really Looking For

Contrary to popular belief, the board is not asking whether the person has “changed” in an abstract sense. The board is assessing whether the individual currently poses an unreasonable risk to public safety, taking into account youth-related mitigating factors.

A properly prepared psychological evaluation addresses this question directly.

Evaluators typically assess:

1. Risk of Recidivism

This is the board’s primary concern.

The evaluator analyzes:

• Static risk factors (age at offense, criminal history)
• Dynamic risk factors (current insight, coping skills, impulse control)
• Protective factors (education, programming, family support)

In youth offender cases, a skilled evaluator explains why static factors tied to youth carry less predictive weight over time, especially after decades of incarceration.

2. Emotional and Psychological Maturity

Under youth offender parole law, maturity is critical.

The evaluation should document:

• Cognitive development since the offense
• Improved decision-making capacity
• Ability to regulate emotions under stress
• Growth in empathy and accountability

The parole board is looking for measurable development, not vague claims of change.

3. Trauma History and Its Impact

Many incarcerated youth entered the system with:

• Childhood abuse or neglect
• Exposure to violence
• Untreated mental health conditions
• Substance abuse rooted in trauma

A competent psychological evaluation does not excuse the offense—but it contextualizes behavior in a way the law requires the board to consider.

This is especially important under SB 672 California parole law, which emphasizes understanding youth behavior through a developmental and rehabilitative lens.

4. Rehabilitation and Insight

The evaluator examines whether the individual:

• Accepts responsibility for the offense
• Understands the harm caused
• Can articulate internal change
• Has developed realistic relapse-prevention strategies

Superficial answers are easily detected and often fatal to parole chances. Insight must be deep, specific, and internally consistent.

Why the Choice of Psychologist Matters

Not all psychologists are qualified to conduct parole evaluations—and many who are licensed do not understand parole law.

This is a critical distinction.

A clinician unfamiliar with:

• The Board of Parole Hearings’ decision-making process
• Youth offender parole standards
• Penal Code 3051 requirements
• The anticipated SB 672 framework

may produce a report that is technically sound but legally ineffective.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we work with forensic psychologists who specialize in youth offender parole cases. These experts understand:

• How parole commissioners read reports
• What language raises red flags
• How to frame rehabilitation without minimizing responsibility
• How to integrate neuroscience, trauma, and risk assessment into a legally persuasive narrative

Common Mistakes That Destroy Parole Cases

We routinely see parole denials caused by avoidable psychological evaluation errors, including:

• Overreliance on static risk factors
• Minimizing the offense or appearing defensive
• Failing to address prior misconduct directly
• Using generic or boilerplate language
• Ignoring youth-specific legal standards

Once a negative evaluation is submitted, the damage is often irreversible until the next hearing cycle.

How We Use Psychological Evaluations Strategically

At Power Trial Lawyers, psychological evaluations are:

• Timed strategically—not rushed
• Coordinated with the overall parole narrative
• Integrated with programming records and family support
• Reviewed line-by-line before submission

We treat the evaluation as expert testimony in a freedom hearing, not as a formality.

Bottom Line

In youth offender parole cases—and especially those anticipated under SB 672 California parole law—a psychological evaluation can be the difference between:

• Release and another decade inside
• Recognition of rehabilitation and permanent denial

If this process is not handled correctly, everything else becomes irrelevant.

That is why this step must be guided by attorneys who understand both the law and the psychology of parole.

SB 672 vs. Penal Code 3051: Key Differences

Why Time Is Critical: Don’t Wait for SB 672 to Become Law

Waiting is the most common—and costly—mistake families make.

If SB 672 is enacted:

• There will be no delay before hearings begin
• Preparation takes months, not weeks
• The parole board will face overwhelming volume

Experienced parole counsel prepares before laws take effect.

SB 672 California Parole Law – Frequently Asked Questions

Talk to Power Trial Lawyers: Your Second Chance Starts Here

SB 672 California parole law is not yet in effect—but its impact is already real.

The law is moving. The parole board is watching. And preparation—not hope—is what determines outcomes.

Every year we see the same pattern: People who wait lose time. People who prepare gain leverage.

If you or a loved one may qualify under SB 672 California parole law, the most important step you can take right now is to speak with a lawyer who understands youth offender parole, life sentences, and the Board of Parole Hearings.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we do not treat parole as a formality. We treat it as freedom litigation.

Call Power Trial Lawyers at 888-808-2179 or Submit a confidential online inquiry today

You cannot change the past. But with the right strategy, you can fight for your future.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we believe that knowledge is power, especially when it comes to California sentencing law. We recognize that California’s sentencing laws are extraordinarily complex, and, adding to the difficulties, they frequently change. But at Power Trial Lawyers, that’s our job. We are passionate about achieving superior results for our clients in criminal defense and appeals cases. This article will cover Assembly Bill 600, California’s Racial Justice Act (AB 256), Penal Code 1172.1, Penal Code 1170(d) (People v. Heard), Penal Code 1385, and Assembly Bill 333.

1. Assembly Bill 600 – Judge Initiated Resentencing

Passed in 2023, Assembly Bill 600 (“AB 600”) aims to address sentencing disparities and offers relief to inmates who may have been unfairly sentenced. The bill, which is now codified as part of California Penal Code § 1172.1, gives courts the ability to recall and resentence inmates if their original sentence was longer than it would be under current laws. This helps address disparities in sentencing laws, especially if that disparity is due to race or culture. Or even more, if the client is particularly eligible and has suffered an unfair sentence. This new resentencing initiative gives judges the ability to recall sentences, placing them directly on the court’s calendar without any necessary recommendation from the district attorney’s office or the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (“CDCR”). 

Eligible candidates include those whose sentences were enhanced due to factors that are no longer considered or no longer considered in the same way, such as certain prior convictions. The key eligibility criteria involve proving that the original sentence would be shorter if imposed under the current legal framework.

2. Racial Justice Act (AB 256)

The Racial Justice Act, enacted through Assembly Bill 256 (“AB 256”), aims to ensure fairness and equality within the judicial system by addressing systemic racism. More specifically, this law recognizes the fact that race has historically played a very real role in criminal sentencing and seeks to rectify the impact of racial discrimination throughout the criminal trial process. The Racial Justice Act allows individuals to challenge their sentences if they can demonstrate that racial bias played a role in their prosecution, sentencing, or in the prosecution’s ability to obtain a conviction. Often, this racial disparity can be seen right in the transcripts where such a racial bias is clear. In other cases, this disparity is demonstrated through the sentence administered to an inmate’s case versus the common norm for others with similar or like case factors. This second approach is much more difficult and may require unique arguments to demonstrate. 

To be eligible, an inmate must provide substantial evidence of racial discrimination, such as biased statements made by prosecutors or statistical data showing racial disparities in sentencing patterns at the time the inmate was sentenced. If you believe you may have a good case meeting the Racial Justice Act, do not fight it alone. You should consult with an attorney to determine the best steps moving forward. 

3. Penal Code 1172.1

Penal Code § 1172.1 provides the mechanism for resentencing in cases where the original sentence is no longer in the interest of justice or was disproportionately harsh. It empowers the court to recall a sentence and resentence an inmate if it finds that the original sentencing was excessive. Historically, a judge had only 120 days to recall a sentence, but under AB 600, that 120-day limitation no longer applies, and a judge can order a resentencing hearing at any time. The CDCR or the District Attorney’s office for the county where the inmate was convicted can also recommend that an inmate be resentenced. 

Eligibility under § 1172.1 often requires a review of the circumstances surrounding the case, including the inmate’s behavior in prison, especially their rehabilitative efforts. There is no requirement to retain an attorney if you wish to pursue this form of resentencing. However, resentencing pursuant to Penal Code 1172.1 takes great sophistication and skill, and it can be quite complex. It is recommended to consult with an experienced criminal defense and appeals lawyer if you wish to pursue resentencing pursuant to Penal Code 1172.1. 

4. Penal Code 1170(d) Resentencing (People v. Heard)

In the case People v. Heard, a California court held that a juvenile who was sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole should be able to rely on Penal Code section 1170(d)(1) when seeking a resentencing. The court held that failure to allow such a petition would violate the inmate’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, to be eligible for a Heard Petition, an inmate must have been sentenced to the “functional equivalent” of life without the possibility of parole, spent at least 15 years incarcerated, and committed the offense before they were 18 years old. 

People v. Heard provides a strong path forward for offenders who were convicted under the age of 18, and who otherwise meet the criteria. This form of resentencing can be quite complex, and may require much negotiations and legal arguments. While an attorney is not required, it is highly recommended to consult with a California Criminal Defense and appeals lawyer to determine the best arguments pursuant to People v. Heard.

5. California Penal Code 1385

Penal Code § 1385 grants judges the discretion to dismiss charges or strike sentencing enhancements when doing so is in the interest of justice. This provision can be particularly useful in cases where sentencing enhancements would resulted in disproportionately long sentences. Moreover, when used with other laws, this penal code section can be a defendant’s strongest argument in any sentencing setting.

To be eligible, an inmate must typically show that the dismissal of certain charges or enhancements would serve justice better than their enforcement. This code is often invoked in sentencing hearings where there could be a harshly disproportionate enhancement or sentence.

6. Assembly Bill 333

Assembly Bill 333 (“AB 333”) focuses on gang-related sentencing enhancements. AB 333 raised the bar for prosecutors to use gang enhancements as well as provide relief for those who are serving sentences comprised in part by a gang enhancement. For example, AB 333 limits prosecutors’ ability to obtain a gang enhancement by requiring more stringent proof that the crime was committed for the benefit of a gang. The law also provides relief to those who were given enhanced sentences based on allegations of gang involvement without substantial evidence. To qualify for resentencing under AB 333, an inmate must demonstrate that their original sentencing was based on insufficient evidence of gang activity or that their actions did not directly benefit a gang. It is important to note this bill has limited retroactive application, and whether it may apply to your case is a fact-specific analysis.

If you or a loved one believes AB 333 may impact their case, it is recommended to consult with a California Criminal Defense and Appeals attorney.

How a Lawyer Can Help

Understanding these resentencing options can provide a pathway to a reduced sentence. However, each option has specific eligibility criteria, and determining eligibility can be very challenging. Not only that, but pursuing the wrong type of relief (or the right type of relief at the wrong time or in the wrong manner) can have long-lasting effects on the future of your case.

An experienced criminal defense and appeals lawyer can advise you on all your options to ensure that you pursue the resentencing options that are best suited for your case. An attorney can also assist with the preparation of your petition, ensuring that the judge is presented with every reason why you are deserving of a resentencing hearing. For example, many of these resentencing options either depend on or are strengthened by strong evidence of rehabilitation. A post-conviction attorney will know how to obtain the necessary evidence to establish that you’ve been rehabilitated and how to present it in the most compelling way possible.

Consult with a Criminal Defense and Appeals Law Firm

If you believe that you or a loved one may qualify for relief under any of these provisions, reach out to the respected California Criminal Defense and A

ppeals lawyers at Power Trial Lawyers for assistance. We offer free consultations, during which we will answer your questions, outline your options, and explain what we will do to help you obtain a resentencing hearing. You can reach our California Criminal Defense and Appeals lawyers by calling (888) 808-2179. You can also connect with us through our secure online contact form. 

**The content in this article was written in July of 2024 and may be subject to change. If you believe you qualify for resentencing or are facing a sentencing hearing, consult with an attorney for up-to-date information in regard to your specific case.**

At Power Trial Lawyers, our unyielding commitment to your protection and freedom is paramount. For more information or to discuss your specific circumstances in confidence, contact us at (888) 808-2179 for your Free Consultation. We stand ready to battle on your behalf because you are not just a case number, you are considered a part of our Power Trial Lawyers family.

Definition of Manslaughter

Manslaughter, a severely punishable act under California’s criminal law, involves unlawfully causing the death of another person without malice aforethought. A crucial differing element from murder, manslaughter lacks the premeditation typically associated with the latter. The California Penal Code 192 defines manslaughter and categorizes it into three types: voluntary, involuntary, and vehicular.

Voluntary manslaughter, often construed as a heat of the passion crime, occurs when an individual kills in a sudden quarrel or during a moment of intense emotional disturbance. In contrast, involuntary manslaughter happens when an individual unthinkingly commits a lawbreaking act causing someone’s death. Lastly, vehicular manslaughter entails an individual causing another’s death through negligent or unlawful driving of a vehicle.

Despite the variations, one common factor across all manslaughter types is the absence of malicious intent to kill. However, these distinctions may significantly impact the severity of sentences upon conviction. It’s therefore critical for any person facing such serious charges to engage a seasoned attorney who can yield potent defense strategies.

Our law firm is a leader in criminal defense, with a proven track record in misdemeanor and felony cases alike, inclusive of manslaughter. With a comprehensive understanding of California Laws, our attorneys maintain a staunch commitment to representing defendants against such claims, conducting thorough investigations, and presenting robust defense strategies. Outfitted with capability and proficiency, our lawyers collaborate tirelessly to secure fair and just outcomes for our clients. Rest assured, in a relentlessly evolving legal landscape, our law firm remains primed to uphold your legal rights and navigate these complex proceedings.

Example of Manslaughter

Navigating the legal waters surrounding a manslaughter charge in California can be convoluted and overwhelming; thus, it becomes pivotal to involve a well-versed law firm capable of providing a robust defense strategy. Our law firm is focused on protecting the rights of individuals who find themselves in the challenging situation of facing manslaughter charges.  We understand that unfortunate situations can result in devastating outcomes, and we believe everyone should have access to comprehensive legal defense in such times.

Let us consider an hypothetical scenario where an individual driving home after a night out loses control of their vehicle due to excessive fatigue, ultimately causing an accident which unfortunately results in the death of a pedestrian. According to the California Penal Code, this tragic circumstance could lead to a vehicular manslaughter charge where the prosecution will attempt to prove the ‘gross negligence’ or reckless behavior on the driver’s part.

Or imagine another circumstance where a casual argument between two neighbors escalates and results in a fatal injury due to violent response from one party – although not premeditated, the prosecution may view this as a voluntary manslaughter scenario. The precarious nature of these examples illustrates how the complexity of criminal law can intersect with everyday life situations.

In such cases, our law firm stands ready to ensure that every factor and potential defense is thoroughly evaluated and articulated effectively before the court of law. We diligently provide unwavering support to defend your rights, advocating on your behalf with comprehensive knowledge of California manslaughter laws. Remember that the onus of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution and every situation holds unique aspects that might influence the outcome – you don’t have to carry the burden of your legal journey alone. Our dedicated team is here to help you every step of the way.

Offenses Related to Manslaughter In California

Manslaughter, under California law, is a serious offense that carries significant consequences. Understanding possibly related crimes can help put this grave charge into perspective:

• Murder: This crime involves taking the life of someone else with a premeditated intent. Unlike manslaughter, murder requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant planned the act which distinguishes it with the involuntary nature of manslaughter.
• Vehicular Homicide: This crime is committed when a person’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle leads to the death of another. It doesn’t require intent to harm, which aligns closer with manslaughter, but the primary difference is that it involves the use of a vehicle.
• Assault: Assault, in simplistic terms, is an attempt or threat to harm someone physically, which can amplify into fatal incidents having parallels with manslaughter. However, the significant difference lies in the outcome of this action. Assault does not necessarily involve the death of the other party.
• Battery: Battery includes intentional physical harm inflicted on another party, which could potentially result in death. Despite similar outcomes, manslaughter and battery are distinctly separate due to the presence or absence of intent.

Our law firm’s sole focus is representing defendants charged with such serious offenses. We strive to deliver comprehensive representation while pledging to maintain the utmost confidentiality and respect for our clients’ circumstances. We understand the complexities of criminal law and are committed to navigating our clients through this challenging time with competence and compassion. Remember, everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and deserves qualified legal representation.

Penalties for Manslaughter in California 

In the state of California, the repercussions for a manslaughter conviction can be significantly life-altering. Manslaughter, the unlawful killing of a human being without premeditation, is classified into varying degrees of severity. Each has unique penalties associated with it. Conviction could lead to a term of incarceration, notable fines, or both, contingent on the specific circumstances surrounding the incident.

Generally, voluntary manslaughter, an act committed during a sudden quarrel, or in the heat of passion, carries a penalty of 3 to 11 years in a state prison. Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, which involves a death resulting from an unlawful act not intended to cause great bodily harm, or from a lawful act that involves the risk of bodily harm, typically results in 2 to 4 years in prison. Vehicular manslaughter, where a motor vehicle is used, is punished by imprisonment of up to 10 years.

Individuals prosecuted for manslaughter should be aware that extenuating factors could lead to increased penalties. These may include the offender’s criminal history, the presence of aggravating factors such as the use of a weapon, the respect for the victim’s rights and the seriousness of the harm inflicted, among others.

Regulated by an intricate and comprehensive legal framework, working through a manslaughter charge is a daunting process. As a law firm representing individuals dealing with such circumstances, we use our nuanced understanding of these laws, built over numerous years of practicing criminal law. Our role is to facilitate the legal journey, wielding our resources to help our clients navigate the complexities of California law while safeguarding their rights, every step of the way.

Defenses to Manslaughter in California

When it comes to defending against manslaughter charges under California law, our law firm is well-equipped to advocate for you with an array of valid defence strategies. Here are some potent defenses that could be leveraged against a manslaughter charge:

• Self-Defense: This argument maintains that the defendant acted in self-defense to protect themselves inflicted by another party. Evidence of imminent danger or threat is required to successfully establish this defense.
• Defense of Others: As the term suggests, this defense asserts that the alleged act was committed by the defendant for the protection of a third party from imminent harm or danger.
• Accidental Death: A critical component of manslaughter is intent. In cases where the death was accidental and there was no criminal intent, this defense could be effective toward acquittal.
• False Accusations: If there are fileable grounds to believe that the defendant has been wrongfully accused, this line of defense aims to prove that the charges are based on incorrect accusations.
• Mistaken Identity: Sometimes, the defendant may be charged due to false recognition or errors in the identification process. This defense works to challenge the credibility of such identifications.
• Alibi: If the defendant has an alibi which proves they were elsewhere at the time of the incident, these charges could be nullified.
• Insufficient Evidence: This defense revolves around challenging the veracity, sufficiency, or legality of evidence against the defendant.

Please remember that this is only a brief overview and the application of these defenses depends heavily on the unique specifics of your case. Our experienced attorneys are adept at navigating these complexities to build a sturdy defense strategy tailored to your circumstances.

Ready to Battle the Prosecution for You

When charged with manslaughter, you need aggressive, strategic legal representation to meet the prosecution head on. At Power Trial Lawyers, our defense attorneys are prepared to combat these serious allegations on your behalf. We fortify your defense with thorough investigations, meticulous case planning, and sharp presentation in court. Our team is unyielding in its dedication towards preserving your rights, freedom, and future.

Regardless of the charges you’re facing, we maintain a relentless pursuit of justice for you. Understanding the nuanced frameworks of California’s criminal laws, we provide effective, rigorous representation for our clients. No matter how complicated your case may be, our attorneys work collectively to devise potent defense strategies, tailoring them to the specifics of your individual situation. If you or a loved one are grappling with a manslaughter charge, connect with us at (888) 808-2179 to schedule your Free Consultation. At Power Trial Lawyers, we fight tooth and nail to protect our clients, because for us, you’re not just a client – you’re family.

Burden and Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases

Accused of a crime? Remember, at our distinguished law firm, we firmly believe and uphold the fundamental presumption of innocence until proven guilty – a cornerstone of American jurisprudence. Accusations, allegations, and charges do not define you, establish guilt, or predict outcomes. These are simply legal hurdles that our experienced lawyers can help you navigate through. The prosecution always bears the heavy duty of proving each element of a criminal charge. It is not enough to merely suspect or believe you to be guilty, they must present irrefutable proof beyond a reasonable doubt to satisfy the strict requirements of the law. Our lawyers understand the complexity of this burden and use it to your advantage.

We diligently scrutinize every shred of evidence, expose weaknesses in the prosecutor’s claims, and ardently champion your defense. Rest assured, our unwavering commitment to justice means we employ our comprehensive understanding of criminal defense law to ensure a robust defense strategy on your behalf. Your intended audience here isn’t the victim of the crime or the public, but the courtroom – the judge, jury, and opposing counsel. At our law firm, we exclusively represent individuals facing criminal charges, shaping compelling narratives and employing strategic defense tactics to help protect your rights and navigate the legal challenges that lay ahead. Bear in mind, we are not here for victims; we are here for you, the defendant, to aid your fight for justice. Whether this is your first encounter with the criminal justice system or a recurring incident, let our accumulated wisdom guide you in this legal battle.

Classification of Offenses

• Felonies: These are the most serious types of crimes under California law and can carry prison sentences ranging from a year to life, depending on the gravity of the crime. Our law firm is well-equipped with adequate resources to effectively represent clients facing felony charges. We employ strong defense strategies aimed at achieving optimal outcomes for these serious incidences.
• Misdemeanors: This category includes criminal offenses that are less severe but still carry significant potential penalties, such as fines, probation, and in some cases, jail time. Understanding that your reputation, freedom, and livelihood are on the line, we stand ready to mount a rigorous defense on your behalf, advocating fiercely for your rights.
• Infractions: While infractions are the least severe category, they are criminal offenses carrying potential fines and potential impact on one’s record. We extend comprehensive assistance to our clients, aiming to minimize the impact of such charges on their everyday lives.
• Wobblers: Some crimes in California can be prosecuted either as a felony or a misdemeanor. These are typically known as “wobblers.” Our legal team stays updated on the intricate legal landscape surrounding these charges, guiding our clients skillfully through the legal process as we strive for the most favorable resolution possible.

In each of these categories, our law firm’s attorneys employ their deep understanding of the law, relentless work ethic, and a thorough approach to provide unparalleled representation. We are committed to delivering legal services that put the needs and interests of our clients first in every aspect of criminal defense.

Common Defenses in Criminal Cases

Navigating the legal system can be tough, yet if you are facing criminal charges, understanding your defense options is pivotal to your future. Our law firm is committed to walking you through these paths:

• Self-Defense: This defense is valid if you believed you were in immediate danger and had to protect yourself. However, your self-defensive force should be proportional to the threat you faced.
• Defense of Others: This applies when you act to protect another person from immediate danger or harm. It is crucial to demonstrate your genuine belief that intervention was necessary, and your response was appropriate under the circumstances.
• Lack of Intent: Here, we aim to prove that you didn’t intend to commit the crime you’re accused of. Whether due to a genuine mistake, or because you accidentally caused damages or injuries, we can build a case around this.
• Consent: For certain crimes, showing that the supposed victim had given explicit consent can dismiss charges. It can be a challenging defense and may require substantial documentation and evidence.
• Entrapment: This defense focuses on proving you were encouraged by law enforcement to commit a crime you wouldn’t have otherwise done. Your attorneys will need to expose dishonest or manipulative actions leveraged by the police.
• Necessity: This uncommon defense requires proof that you committed the crime to avoid a greater evil. It can potentially be applied in survival situations or immediate crises.
• Duress: If you acted under serious threats or danger from another person, proving duress can dismiss charges. It requires evidence of immediate threat or use of force against you.

Our firm seeks to educate, guide, and represent you under the heavy burden of criminal charges. A deep understanding of these defense categories and a clear ethical commitment position us as a trusted ally in your pursuit of justice.

Constitutional Rights of Criminal Defendant

Navigating your way through the American criminal justice system can be daunting without appropriate legal counsel. Our firm is wholly dedicated to providing vigorous defense for those accused of crimes. We understand the profound impact these allegations can have on your personal and professional life, as well as the necessity of guarding and asserting your consitutional rights. These rights include:

• The right to remain silent: The Fifth Amendment allows you to abstain from questioning that may incriminate you. This right is a powerful safeguard against coerced or false confessions.
• The right to counsel: Sixth Amendment provisions guarantee your access to legal representation. If you cannot afford an attorney, the state must provide you with one.
• The right to confront witnesses: As a defendant, you, or your attorney, have the ability to cross-examine any witnesses who testify against you. This process ensures the integrity of their statements and your opportunity for defense.
• The right to a jury trial: If the charges are serious, you have the entitlement to a trial by a jury of your peers. This collective decision-making process aims to provide a fair and unbiased verdict.
• Protection against double jeopardy: The Fifth Amendment prevents you from being tried twice for the same crime, ensuring due process of law.
• Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures: The Fourth Amendment protects your privacy and personal property from unwarranted and invasive government intrusion.

These constitutional safeguards form the cornerstone of your defense, and any violation could potentially hinder the prosecution’s case against you. We are committed not just to uphold these rights but to strategize your defense around them. Remember, in our democratic society, you are innocent until proven guilty, and our firm is resolved to tirelessly advocate your defense until this justice is upheld.

Plea Bargains in Criminal Cases

When you’re facing criminal charges, the predicament can be daunting and overwhelming. Fears of the unknown, potential penalties, and the complex judicial process may cloud your decision-making. In such moments, you rely heavily on qualified legal advice to guide your steps. As a distinguished law firm, we’re competent in providing critical insights for criminal defense.

An aspect of criminal law that we provide substantial guidance on is plea bargains. Plea bargains can offer a more predictable outcome when compared to a trial. This option allows the accused to plead guilty to a lesser charge or to only some of the charges they face, in exchange for a lighter sentence. For example, armed robbery charges may dwindle to theft under specific circumstances.

However, plea bargains are not universally advantageous. You are effectively admitting guilt when you accept a plea deal, which can lead to consequences beyond immediate legal penalties, such as impacting your employment prospects or social standing. Moreover, poorly negotiated plea arrangements might still lead to severe sentencing or leave you with a criminal record.

Providing representation to criminal defendants, our law firm has immense experience in negotiating fair plea bargains. We commit to scrutinizing your case meticulously, analyzing your legal options, and advocating for your best interests, all without using highfalutin legal jargon. Regardless of the complexity of your situation, you can trust that our litigators will unrelentingly champion your cause. A firm belief in justice and equity fuels our dedication to serving each client, instigating our pursuit of every possible defense avenue for you. In us, you’ll find unfaltering guidance, relentless defense, and unwavering dedication to your case.

Expungement or Record Sealing of Criminal Convictions

Being charged with, and even more so, being convicted of a crime can markedly affect the course of an individual’s life; opportunities that were once available often become closed, and the shadow of the past begins to loom large over each and every future step. However, California law recognizes that everyone deserves a second chance, and people should have the capacity to amend for past mistakes and move on constructively. This is where post-conviction relief measures, such as expungement and record sealing, come into play.

Expungement, in the legal context, typically refers to the process by which a criminal conviction is essentially erased from an individual’s record. Once expunged, in the eyes of the law, it is almost as if the crime never occurred. This can open up lost opportunities, and free the person from the restrictions that a criminal conviction often places on employment, housing, and even the vote.

Record sealing, on the other hand, is not a complete erasure, but instead, as the name suggests, it seals away the record of the crime from public view. A sealed record is still present, but it is invisible to most background checks.

Both expungement and record sealing come with their unique benefits and are applicable under specific circumstances – the type of crime, the time that’s passed since the conviction or completion of the sentence, and the individual’s record since. It is at this juncture that our law firm, having an in-depth understanding of the workings of the California legal system, can prove invaluable. We extend our aid to defendants who want to rehabilitate their lives without the weight of a criminal conviction upon them. Clients, please understand: we are here to help defend your future by mitigating the impacts of the past. Our firm stands for commitment, compassion, and the belief in second chances.

Ready to Battle the Prosecution for You

We at Power Trial Lawyers are dedicated to staunchly advocating for those entangled in the complex criminal process. We comprehend the nuances of criminal law, unmask the subtleties of the prosecution’s case, and carefully craft your defense, respecting every unique scenario’s fine details. From the inception of client representation to a case’s conclusion, our commitment to you remains steadfast.

Are you being unjustly charged? Rest easy knowing that our competent and dedicated legal team stands ready to fight for you every step of the way. We believe in facilitating an open line of communication, keeping you in the loop and affording you comfort and peace of mind. We encourage potential clients to access our insights through a free consultation, exploring how we can best assist you in securing your freedom. At Power Trial Lawyers, we diligently work towards preserving your rights and ensuring justice is served.

Understanding AB 600: An Evolution in Resentencing

AB 600 stands as a pioneering California law designed to augment judges’ discretion in ordering resentencing hearings for inmates serving extended sentences for serious crimes. To grasp the nuances of AB 600, it is crucial to contrast its provisions with the previous legal landscape.

Pre-AB 600 Resentencing Procedures: A Rigorous Path

Before AB 600, judges could only order resentencing hearings under specific circumstances, primarily relying on recommendations from the district attorney or the Board of Parole Hearings. However, the limitations imposed by Penal Code § 1172.1 often rendered this mechanism ineffective, given its narrow timeframe of 120 days post-commitment to state prison.

Furthermore, the discretionary nature of district attorneys and the Board of Parole in responding to § 1172.1 petitions led to instances where meticulously prepared petitions were filed away without due consideration. This incongruity with the intended legislative purpose necessitated the emergence of AB 600.

AB 600: Liberating Judges’ Discretion

The pivotal feature of AB 600 lies in its elimination of the requirement for district attorney or Attorney General concurrence with the resentencing court’s decision. Post AB 600, inmates seeking resentencing hearings are no longer beholden to the discretion of these entities and can directly present their petitions to the court.

In the drafting of AB 600, the California Legislature explicitly stated its intent for courts to have complete discretion in resentencing proceedings, especially concerning prior strike decisions. The Legislature emphasized that factors considered in People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) should not be exhaustive, urging courts to consider various aspects, including Penal Code Section 1385 and post-conviction factors.

Criteria for a Resentencing Hearing Under AB 600

AB 600 mandates judges to consider “post-conviction factors” when reviewing resentencing petitions. These factors include an inmate’s disciplinary record, record of rehabilitation, reduced risk of future violence, and evidence suggesting that the defendant’s continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Examples illustrating a defendant’s potential eligibility for resentencing under AB 600 encompass changes in the law favoring the inmate, constitutional rights violations during trial, evidence undermining conviction or sentence integrity, and experiences of psychological, physical, or childhood trauma.

Maximizing AB 600’s Impact: The Role of Legal Representation

With AB 600 poised to usher in a surge of resentencing petitions, ensuring the exceptional quality of petitions through proper procedural channels becomes imperative. Los Angeles Criminal Appeals Lawyers at Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. and Orange County Sentencing Lawyers at Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. boast a track record of successfully seeking resentencing hearings for clients. While AB 600 establishes a mechanism for resentencing, its utilization may not be a routine occurrence initiated by judges. Its efficacy becomes pronounced in situations where judges may have previously expressed an inclination toward imposing a more lenient sentence but found themselves bound by the legal constraints in place at the time. Moreover, a sufficient overview of an inmate’s central file may be relevant for a judicial officer to exercise their discretion under AB 600.

For those seeking insights into the ramifications of AB 600 and its potential impact on prior sentences, Power Trial Lawyers stands ready to provide assistance. Our focus in criminal appeals and writs of habeas corpus positions us as uniquely suited lawyer  in the intricacies of post-conviction proceedings. If you or someone you know is inquisitive about the implications of AB 600, our dedicated team is at your service.

To delve deeper into AB 600 and assess its potential impact on your sentence, reach out to Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. at (888) 808-2179. Alternatively, connect with us through our secure online contact form to schedule a free consultation with our experienced legal team. At Power Trial Lawyers, we stand ready to navigate the complexities of AB 600 for the benefit of our clients.

• The California Penal Code (Section 1170) sets forth the basic framework for felony sentencing in the state, including the three strikes law, determinate sentencing, and alternative sentencing options such as drug treatment programs and community service.
• The California Rules of Court (Rule 4.408) provides more detailed information on the sentencing process, including the procedures for imposing and challenging a sentence, the calculation of good conduct credits, and the rules governing parole and probation.

Additionally, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) provides guidance on the implementation of sentencing laws through various policies and regulations. Generally, felony sentencing guidelines in California are determined by several factors, including:

• the specific crime committed;
• the defendant’s criminal history; and
• any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

These guidelines are designed to ensure that sentences are fair, consistent, and proportional to the severity of the crime committed.

One of the key factors in determining a felony sentence in California is the specific crime that was committed. California law divides crimes into three categories: misdemeanors, wobblers, and felonies. Misdemeanors are the least serious type of crime and are punishable by up to one year in county jail. Wobblers are crimes that can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on the circumstances of the case and the defendant’s criminal history. Felonies are the most serious type of crime and are punishable by imprisonment in state prison.

The California Penal Code also assigns each crime a “sentencing range,” which is the range of possible prison sentences for that crime. These sentencing ranges are determined by the severity of the crime, with more serious crimes having higher sentencing ranges. For example, a conviction for first-degree murder carries a minimum sentence of 25 years to life in prison, while a conviction for grand theft carries a sentencing range of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in state prison.

Another key factor in determining a felony sentence in California is the defendant’s criminal history. Under California law, prior convictions can result in increased sentences for repeat offenders. For example, if a defendant has one prior “strike” conviction pursuant to California Penal Code § 667(b) – (i), they will face a doubled sentence for their current crime. If a defendant has two or more “strike” prior convictions, they will face a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.

Additionally, California law also provides for “enhancements” to a sentence based on certain aggravating circumstances. These enhancements can increase the minimum and maximum sentences for a crime. For example, if a crime is committed with a firearm, the sentence can be enhanced by an additional 3, 4, or 10 years.

Lastly, there are also mitigating circumstances that can decrease the sentence. These include but not limited to, the defendant’s age, lack of prior criminal history, remorse and cooperation with the authorities, among others.

In summary, felony sentencing guidelines in California are determined by several factors, including the specific crime committed, the defendant’s criminal history, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. These guidelines are designed to ensure that sentences are fair, consistent, and proportional to the severity of the crime committed. It’s important for defendants to understand the specific laws and regulations related to sentencing, and to consult with an attorney to determine the best legal strategy for their case.

How a California Criminal Appeals and Post-Conviction Law Firm Can Help

Call today to consult with a Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. criminal appeals lawyer at (888) 808-2179 or you can submit a contact submission.

Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. successfully argued a client’s case in the California Appellate Court, Second District, forcing the case back to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing.

On December 1, 2022, after nearly 20 months of review, the California Appellate Court, Second District issued an order in a Power Trial Lawyers, P.C., case that involved a client who was deprived of their right to effective counsel. Even worse, at the trial level, the Client’s former attorney did not properly object to the admission of contents of the client’s cell phone that was obtained from a warrantless search pursuant to Penal Code § 1538.5 and Riley v. California (2014) 573 U.S. 373. 

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is a claim brought about by way of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or in a direct appeal. If successful, the claim can overturn criminal convictions. To successfully prove ineffective assistance of counsel, an accused must demonstrate:

1. That the trial lawyer’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and
2. There is a reasonable probability that had the trial attorney’s performance been objectively reasonable, the result of the proceedings would have been substantially different.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

The Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. client brought a pro per Writ of Habeas Corpus  at the trial level seeking the ineffective assistance of counsel and counsel’s failure to object to the admission of evidence otherwise deemed the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The trial court wrongfully denied his claim without a hearing. Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. reviewed the client’s case and brought an appellate Writ of Habeas Corpus to the California Court of Appeals, Second District, in attempt to shed light on the merits of his claim. The Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. attorneys argued that the client’s case likely suffers from ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Furthermore, the Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. team also argued that the client was entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

After all briefs were finalized in the appellate Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Second District Court of Appeals agreed with Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. and remanded the case back down to the lower court for an evidentiary hearing. In ruling for the Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. client, the Appellate Court held:

The clerk of this court is directed to send the superior court a copy of the petition with exhibits, along with the preliminary response and reply, and to serve it with this order to show cause. Upon receipt, the superior court is directed to file the petition in that court, set a briefing schedule for the parties, and set a hearing to determine whether petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective and whether there was a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s unprofessional efforts, the result of petitioner’s trial would have been different.

How a California Criminal Appeals Lawyer Can Help

If you or a loved think you may be entitled to appeal a lower court’s ruling due to procedural defects or possibly wrongful conviction, consult with a Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. lawyer by calling (888) 808-2179. Or you can submit a contact submission.

Background Regarding SB 1437

In 2019, SB 1437 was enacted, amending Penal Code § 188 and § 189 and creating Penal Code § 1170.95. Pursuant to SB 1437, accomplice liability for felony murder and murder by way of the natural and probable consequence doctrine was substantially changed, allowing individuals convicted to seek to vacate their murder convictions and obtain resentencing relief. Resentencing is available for individuals convicted of murder, attempted murder, and/or manslaughter if they demonstrate:

1. The defendant was not a substantial actor in leading to homicide; and
2. The defendant did not “act with reckless indifferent to human life.”

To determine whether an accused was a substantial actor or whether they acted with reckless indifferent to human life, courts look to the non-exhaustive factors set out in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark). These two cases list several factors (i.e., use of or knowledge of weapons, physical presence at the scene of the crime, opportunity to restraining codefendants or aid victims, knowledge of the threats that codefendants may possess, etc.) that courts use to determine whether someone meets the SB 1437 standard. As such, SB 1437 created a mechanism and a procedure for those convicted under the former law to retroactively see relief from the law, as highlighted in Pen. Code, § 1172.6; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952.

Special Circumstance Murder & The People v. Strong Case

Once SB 1437, individuals started to petition the court, seeking relief. However, quickly, those convicted of “special circumstance” felony murder quickly saw some of their petitions denied or stayed due to the special circumstance addition.

Christopher Strong filed, alleging all the requirements for relief pursuant to SB 1437. However, the District Attorney’s office opposed Strong, citing that strong could not bring a petition for relief because his 2014 conviction for special circumstance felony murder established that he was either an actual killer, had directly aided and abetted murder with the intent to kill, or was a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. The trial court agreed and denied Strong’s SB 1437 Petition.

Once Strong appealed the case, the Appellate Court ruled against him also. However, they did note that there was a sharp split among courts whether special circumstance murder precludes SB 1437 relief. The Appellate court ultimately sided against Strong.

The Supreme Court of California weighed in on the issue, ruling in favor of Strong, ruling that “findings issued by a jury before Banks and Clark do not preclude a defendant from making out a prima facie case for relief under Senate Bill 1437. This is true even if the trial evidence would have been sufficient to support the findings under Banks and Clark.”

In other words, the Supreme Court is drawing a distinction among special circumstance felony murder cases. If the defendant was convicted before Banks and Clark, there is no automatic bar precluding defendants from seeking SB 1437 relief to vacate their conviction and get resentenced.

How an SB 1437 Lawyer Can Help

Consult with an appellate and post-conviction firm in California by submitting a contact form or by direct call to our firm at (888) 808-2179.

In granting the Application for Commutation of Sentence, Governor Newsom indicated the following about Power Trial Lawyers, P.C.’s client:

In 1986, Jose Garcia and his crime partners kidnapped two victims who owed them money, held them for ransom, and beat them. On April 26, 1988, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, sentenced Mr. Garcia to life without the possibility of parole for kidnapping for ransom, five years for kidnapping, plus four years of sentence enhancements.

Mr. Garcia was 33 years old at the time of the crime and is now 69. He has been incarcerated for 35 years. Mr. Garcia has expressed sincere remorse for his actions.

While serving a sentence with no hope of release, Mr. Garcia has devoted himself to his self-improvement. Mr. Garcia has maintained an exemplary disciplinary record. He has engaged in self-help programming and extensive educational coursework. He has been commended by correctional staff for his positive attitude.

Mr. Garcia’s commutation application was reviewed by the Board of Parole Hearings, which voted at an en bane meeting to recommend a clemency grant. The California Supreme Court also made a recommendation for a clemency grant, a process required by the California Constitution for clemency applicants who have been convicted of more than one felony.

Mr. Garcia committed a serious crime. Since then, Mr. Garcia has demonstrated a commitment to his self-improvement and rehabilitation. I have carefully considered and weighed the evidence of Mr. Garcia’s positiveconduct in prison and his good prospects for successful community reentry. I have concluded that Mr. Garcia merits the opportunity to appear before the Board of Parole Hearings so it can determine whether he is suitable for parole.

This act of clemency for Mr. Garcia does not minimize or forgive his conduct or the harm it caused. It does recognize the work he has done since to transform himself.

Consult with Appeals Law Firm About Your Clemency/Pardon Application

To learn more, and to schedule a case evaluation, contact Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. at (888) 808-2179 today. You can also connect with us through our online contact form.

Recently, Attorney Matthew Barhoma, appeared on Court TV to discuss several of the nation’s highest-profile criminal cases.

 Ahmaud Arbery

Earlier this year, three White men who were previously convicted for the February 2020 murder of Ahmaud Arbery were sentenced by a Georgia judge. Shortly after the sentencing, California criminal appeals attorney Matthew Barhoma appeared on Court TV to discuss the court’s sentencing decision in which one defendant was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after ten years and the other two to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

This case presented some all-too-common concerns in cases involving White defendants who are charged with crimes against People of Color. The commentator notes that it took three DAs from a different part of Georgia to even prosecute the case.

When asked about the case, Attorney Barhoma explained that “the system got it right here” and that he was impressed by the judge’s handling of the case from beginning to end, “he was very fair and very calculated.” Barhoma continues, “Here, he did what was right,” noting that although the “judge looks a lot like the defendants … he handed down a very fair sentence, despite complexion, despite any kind of racism or anything implicated in this case. He focused on the facts.”

Ethan Crumley

Attorney Barhoma was also asked to appear on Court TV to discuss the case of Ethan Crumley. Mr. Crumley was arrested at 15 years old for the 2021 Oxford High School shooting in Michigan. Attorney Barhoma was asked about Mr. Crumley’s decision to waive his preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing is the initial examination of the prosecution’s case by a judge. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial or if the case—or specific charges— must be dismissed for lack of evidence.

Attorney Barhoma explained that while the decision to waive a preliminary hearing is a very strategic one, he was not surprised by Mr. Crumley’s decision. “There is a lot that you can benefit from having the prelim but sometimes, in absolutely notorious cases, where there is a massive amount of evidence, you actually to get ahead of that and start to litigate in limine to be able to control what goes into evidence if this goes to trial.”

When asked about the possibility of a plea deal, Attorney Barhoma explained that the fact that his parents are involved increased the likelihood. Additionally, “he was very youthful, and he was impressioned upon by his family, and so there may be some mitigating circumstances that would lead to a plea deal. However, something you need to remember is that this was quite gruesome, and you’ve got four dead victims, so there is a lot to rectify.”

Chandler Michael Halderson

Finally, Attorney Barhoma also recently appeared on Court TV to discuss Chandler Michael Halderson, who was arrested for murdering and dismembering his parents. Specifically, Attorney Barhoma was asked to comment on the judge’s decision to publish photos to the jury in a pamphlet that jurors were able to refer to throughout the trial. Barhoma explains that such a decision was “very prejudicial towards the defendant because the jury members can sit there observe it and really take it in. They are taking in all kinds of information about this that is much more than the momentary instance of observing the photos once in court. Certainly, it definitely resonates more with the jury.

However, Attorney Barhoma also raises the possibility that the pamphlets are “overly prejudicial” and that it could turn into an appealable issue. While Attorney Barhoma raised concerns about the judge’s decision to allow the pamphlets, he also noted that the other evidence against Mr. Harrison seemed to be overwhelming and that an appellate court would likely find that the pamphlets did not unduly influence the jury in the event Mr. Halderson was found guilty.

Speak with a California Post-Conviction Lawyer About Your Case

You can contact us to consult with a California criminal appeals lawyers by calling (888) 808-2179.

To learn more, contact Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. at (888) 808-2179. You can also reach the firm through its online contact form.

What Is a Writ of Habeas Corpus?

Simply put, a writ of habeas corpus calls into question the continued incarceration of an individual. Thus, aside from direct appeal relief, a petition for writ of habeas corpus is another important way for inmates to challenge their conviction or sentence. However, unlike an appeal, a writ of habeas corpus does not give a petitioner the chance to relitigate their case. Writs of habeas corpus are limited to situations in which someone is incarcerated due to an incorrect application of law or newly present circumstances justifying their release.

The Difference Between State and Federal Writs of Habeas Corpus

Writs of habeas corpus can be filed in state or federal court. A state-court writ of habeas corpus is brought pursuant to California law, whereas a federal writ is brought under prevailing federal law.

To bring an application for a California writ of habeas corpus, an individual must meet the following criteria:

• They must be in custody, on probation or parole, released on bail, or on house arrest;
• They must have exhausted their other remedies, such as a direct appeal; and
• The issues raised in the applicant cannot have been already resolved on appeal.

It is important to remember that a writ of habeas corpus is not another appeal. It is an entirely different proceeding that takes place after an appeal. In California, there is no strict timeline requiring when an application for a writ of habeas corpus must be filed; however, the law requires a petitioner to bring all claims in a “timely” manner.

Federal writs of habeas corpus are quite different in several ways. The United States Constitution provides states significant rights in handling their own affairs. This includes creating and enforcing criminal laws and developing appellate procedures.  Thus, federal courts will generally defer to states on issues involving state law. However, federal law sets a “floor” in terms of individual rights, and a state cannot provide citizens fewer rights than conferred by the federal government.

Federal writs of habeas corpus can be filed in various situations. However, the most commonly filed writ is one challenging a state judgment. Given that the federal government defers to states for the most part, a federal court will only grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus in certain “extraordinary” circumstances. There are two situations in which a federal court will grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a state court judgment:

1. The state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
2. The state court decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.

Thus, only claims arising under federal law or the U.S. Constitution can be brought in a federal habeas petition. However, alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment (i.e., motions to suppress evidence or statements) are not cognizable claims in a federal habeas petition.

The “Exhaustion” Requirement

Before a federal court will consider an applicant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, the applicant must exhaust their state remedies. This goes back to the deference federal court afford to state courts; if the state court wasn’t given the opportunity to weigh in on the applicant’s issues, the federal court will not intervene for fear of infringing on the state’s rights. Requiring an applicant pursue their state remedies first also results in a more developed factual record for the federal court to review.

Exhausting state remedies requires an inmate “fairly present” each of their claims to the state court, either on appeal or through an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed in state court. More specifically, an applicant must explain both the facts and the legal basis of each claim. Additionally, to fully exhaust state court remedies, an applicant needs to pursue all levels of appeal or post-conviction relief, up to the state supreme court. Finally, an inmate must exhaust each claim in a federal habeas petition, otherwise, the court will dismiss the entire petition—even those claims which were exhausted.

Not only must an applicant exhaust their state remedies before seeking federal review through an application for a writ of habeas corpus, but they must also bring their federal application within the applicable statute of limitations. Under current law, an applicant has just one year to file their federal habeas petition from the date they exhausted their state-court remedies. While there are exceptions to this general rule, most cases must be brought within this timeframe. However, determining when the statute of limitations to file a federal writ begins is challenging, and, in practice, applicants walk a fine line between filing premature applications and untimely ones.

Learn More About Federal Writs of Habeas Corpus and How to Use Them Effectively

If you are currently serving a lengthy sentence of incarceration, contact Power Trial Lawyers to discuss your case with an experienced California criminal appeals lawyer. Attorney Matthew Barhoma, the founder of Power Trial Lawyers, has successfully secured the release of several clients through various means of post-conviction relief, including applications for writs of habeas corpus. Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. will review records and determine best stratgies, including arguments set for on Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. To learn more about federal and/or state writs of habeas corpus and to schedule a free consultation with an attorney with Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. call us at (888) 808-2179.

Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. receives the Commutation Recommendation from Governor Gavin Newsom’s office. The Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. client may soon be walking free. Historically, Governors will wait and issue a number of Commutations and other Pardons at the end of their term. However, Governor Newsom has elected to issue commutations more periodically. And in making these issuance, he has recieved and reviewed the Commutation Application of a deserving Power Trial Lawyers Client and has recommended his sentence to be commuted.

Traditionally, the Governor’s office has free reign and control to commute sentences in any way they deem fit. One thing the Governor’s office can do is recommend a sentence for commutation by sending the case, alongside the commutation recommendation, to the office of the Parole Board, who will put together a review and hold a hearing. Once that’s completed successfully, it will be sent back to the Governor’s office for final commutation. This particular Power Trial Lawyers client may soon be walking free after nearly 30 years of incarceration.

An Application for Commutation of Sentence invokes and calls upon the governor’s clemency power. The Governor can commute any state sentence, stemming from a state conviction. Under the California Constitution, the Governor may commute the sentence of any conviction, even special circumstances convictions. This makes the Commutation Application one of the most pervasive post-conviction remedies.

How Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. Can Help in Your Application for Commutation of Sentence

At Power Trial Lawyers, P.C., we represent clients in preparing and finalizing their commutation applications. You can find more information on Applications for Commutations of Sentence here. If you or a loved one are thinking of filing an Application for Commutation of Sentence, contact us at Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. by submitting a Contact Submission or by call at (888) 808-2179 to consult with a Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. attorney.

Application for Commutation of Sentence | California Criminal Appeals Attorney | Post-Conviction Los Angeles Lawyer

Historically, juveniles were frequently charged as adults. It wasn’t until relatively recently that the juvenile justice system came into existence. The juvenile justice system has a primary focus on rehabilitation. Minors can also “age out” of the juvenile justice system, limiting the length of time they are subject to incarceration or supervision. Thus, whenever possible, juveniles benefit from staying in the juvenile justice system.

For the most part, juveniles who are charged as adults face the same punishments that adults do. There are two important exceptions: the death penalty and life in prison without the possibility of parole (JLWOP). In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death. Subsequently, the Court determined that, while juveniles can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, a trial court must follow strict procedures that allow proper consideration of the defendant’s age.

In the Court’s most recent opinion involving JLWOP, the Court was tasked with determining whether Mississippi’s JLWOP statute was constitutionally sufficient given recent legal developments.

In that case, the defendant was charged with the murder of his grandfather. At the time of the offense, the defendant was 15 years old. A jury convicted the defendant, and a judge sentenced him to LWOP. After the Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, the Mississippi Supreme Court ordered the defendant was eligible for a resentencing.

At the defendant’s resentencing, the judge again sentenced him to LWOP, finding that it remained the appropriate sentence. The defendant filed a post-conviction petition, claiming that the resentencing judge failed to consider whether he was “permanently incorrigible.” The defendant maintained that this was a necessary finding to resentence a juvenile to LWOP.

The Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument. The Court explained that the resentencing court need only consider “an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics” before resentencing. The Court held that there was no requirement that a court finds the defendant to be permanently incorrigible and that as long as a state’s sentencing structure provided for the consideration of the defendant’s youth and the impact it had on the commission of the offense, it was constitutionally sound.